If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

But your original thesis was not whether a team will overlook character concerns (e.g. laziness) if they win. Your thesis was that great QB's have a great work ethic. Ben, at least at first, did not and still won. You have a tendency to change your argument whenever evidence to the contrary raises its ugly head.

And Ben was hardly a "franchise QB" year 1. You are engaging in revisionist history. Ben's first season was much more Trent Dilfer in 2000 than RGIII or Andrew Luck 2012. In fact, most of his praise from around the league was as a "game manager". He was protected by a strong running game and defense. Or weren't you around for that?

Ben wasn't allowed to throw much as rookie like RGIII and Luck but I do think you're taking away his importance to that 2004 team.......I highly doubt the 2004 Steelers would have been 15-1 with Tommy Maddox as the starting QB that season....Ben was allowed to throw in first half games to help build those leads then Cowher then just ran the ball to control the clock.......Ben throwing 17 TD passes with not even 300 pass attempts was impressive and really that was the right call with Ben that year since I don't think he was fully ready to take on a bigger load.....Sorry if I'm rambling but I just feel Ben still doesn't get enough credit for that 2004 season....

sanchez works hard he just sucks...nothing indicates sanchez is lazy or has bad character. Mallet was the same was at Arkansas, he grew up...people grow up, its weird but it happens...look at, idk, Ben Roethlisberger.

The broncos taking osweiler is a pefect example of an insurance policy for a QB that has health question marks

Did you see the "Hard Knocks" with the Jets? Dirty Sanchez was always screwing around. No one said you can't have fun, but the impression formed from those clips were a guy who wasn't taking it all that seriously. Is it iron clad evidence? No, but just saying he appeared to not be taking it that serious. I think he has upped his effort in the last few years, but, it hasn't mattered, because, as you say, he just sucks.

I even quote you stating "most telling." Your entire straw man diatribe is a straw man itself, not to mention a red herring.

Just because you say so? OK.

The truth of the matter is this.

1. You made a logical fallacy as an argument by stating that "NFL experts" see wins/losses as the "most telling" QB stat.

And it's true. Tell me the stat that trumps win-loss. I will be waiting, sipping on a cup of coffee.

You did this in reference to Vince Young and without a shred of evidence that NFL experts actually think that (the informal name for this is the "Everyone Knows" logical fallacy).

Tell me the single state that trumps a QB win-loss #. I am waiting.

2. I brought up Tebow, who has a good win/loss record but no one correctly wants.

Are you learning impaired? I already explained this.

3. In order to defend your position on Young, you were forced to go into a long diatribe against Tebow using EVERYTHING BUT the supposedly "most telling" stat. Suddenly, you treat it (and QB rating, where Tebow also beats Young) as not even worth mentioning.

I think you are being purposely obtuse.

4. Unfortunately, you were not bright enough to see that I was not even arguing VY and Tebow, I was arguing the idiotic and unsubstantiated assertion that "NFL experts" see wins/losses as the "most telling" stat. It is practically self-refuting. If true, VY would not need to find a job as a backup with the Steelers.

I'm not going to repeat myself; this was all clearly explained already. Please recite the SINGLE QB stat more telling than win-loss. I am waiting for the single stat that is more indicative. (HINT: I am asking for the single stat that is more telling; not a collective pool of data, which can be used to explain why Tebow is not desired.) It's really pretty simple; you are purposely trying to muddy the waters. And it's beyond obvious. Why your desire for purposeful obtuseness? IDK, maybe you are in the slammer trying to kill some time, or at work doing the same.

Ben wasn't allowed to throw much as rookie like RGIII and Luck but I do think you're taking away his importance to that 2004 team.......I highly doubt the 2004 Steelers would have been 15-1 with Tommy Maddox as the starting QB that season....Ben was allowed to throw in first half games to help build those leads then Cowher then just ran the ball to control the clock.......Ben throwing 17 TD passes with not even 300 pass attempts was impressive and really that was the right call with Ben that year since I don't think he was fully ready to take on a bigger load.....Sorry if I'm rambling but I just feel Ben still doesn't get enough credit for that 2004 season....

No rambling at all I get what you are saying and agree for the most part. Ben did a very nice job his rookie season. However, the thesis by ice cream glove was not that Ben did a nice job in his minimal passing attempts but that Ben was a "franchise QB." Franchise QBs (Brees, Rodgers, Brady, P. Manning) do not get protected by their coaches like Ben was protected by Cowher. Again, Ben did a great job of doing what was asked of him but I do not believe there is any doubt that he was not asked to do as much as the aforementioned QBs are asked.

And it's true. Tell me the stat that trumps win-loss. I will be waiting, sipping on a cup of coffee. Tell me the single state that trumps a QB win-loss #. I am waiting.

Please, take a course in elementary logic from your local adult "learning annex." You stated. (again I quote): "And, ask any NFL "expert" and they will tell you, with QBs, the win-loss stat is the most telling of all stats."

It is your responsibility to provide evidence of this, not mine to disprove something that you have not provided at least prima facie evidence to be true. That said, there is tons of evidence to the contrary. No one wants Tebow, Archie Manning is considered a very good QB despite a winning percentage in the 30's, etc.

Are you learning impaired? I already explained this.

Not an argument. Mere ad hominem.

I think you are being purposely obtuse.

Not an argument. Mere ad hominem.

I'm not going to repeat myself; this was all clearly explained already. Please recite the SINGLE QB stat more telling than win-loss. I am waiting for the single stat that is more indicative. (HINT: I am asking for the single stat that is more telling; not a collective pool of data, which can be used to explain why Tebow is not desired.) It's really pretty simple; you are purposely trying to muddy the waters. And it's beyond obvious. Why your desire for purposeful obtuseness? IDK, maybe you are in the slammer trying to kill some time, or at work doing the same.

The only one muddying the waters here is you. YOU made a claim that "NFL experts" see wins/losses as the "most telling" statistic without a shred of substantiation, just your opinion (a logical fallacy called the "Everybody Knows" fallacy). You then have the gall to expect me to refute something you will not even bother to support (or cannot) with actual evidence.